Jeb Bush routinely has dismissed those who protest Common Core’s increasing federalization of local control over schools as conspiracy-mongers. But it’s President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan who’ve made common cause with Bush and corporate elites in foisting Common Core standards, tests, technology and data-mining boondoggles on local school districts. Obama, Duncan and Bush have been meeting with deep-pocketed CEOs in Washington, not with ordinary parents outside the Beltway.

“(S)tates weren’t leaping because they couldn’t resist the Core’s academic magnetism. They were leaping because it was the Great Recession — and the Obama administration was dangling a $4.35 billion Race to the Top carrot in front of them. Big points in that federal program were awarded for adopting the Core, so, with little public debate, most did.”

In an executive order, the governor said she was “reaffirming Arizona’s right to set education policy.” Her order spells out “no standards or curriculum shall be imposed on Arizona by the federal government.”

But it concedes the standards adopted by the state Board of Education in 2010 already are being implemented. And Brewer herself referred to them as Common Core in her State of the State speech and her budget request to the Legislature.

Press aide Andrew Wilder said the order changes nothing except the name, which going forward will be “Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards.’’

...“This is just changing the window dressing,” said Diane Douglas, a Republican running for state school superintendent. She remains convinced that, whatever the name, the standards being implemented are essentially being forced on Arizona by the federal government.

And on Thursday the school released a statement condemning Guth's tweet.

“The contents of Professor Guth’s tweet were repugnant and in no way represent the views or opinions of the University of Kansas. "[I]t is truly disgraceful that these views were expressed in such a callous and uncaring way. We expect all members of the university community to engage in civil discourse and not make inflammatory and offensive comment

Allan Brauer, the communications chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento, Calif., told an aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) on Friday that he hoped her children “die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.”

...He followed up the attack with a series of vicious tweets:

Busy blocking the tapeworms that have slithered out of hellspawn @amandacarpenter's asshole. How's your day so far?

Update (2:13 p.m.): The California Democratic Party spokesman Tenoch Flores said “the problem” with attacks like wishing a painful death on the children of a political staffer is that it lets people like Sen. Ted Cruz “off the hook,” in a statement to Yahoo’s Chris Moody...

As Twitchy reported, sicko Sacramento Democrat official Allan Brauer viciously wished death on Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter’s children. Brauer also writes at a blog, ironically titled “It Matters How You Say It.” He’s got plenty of advice to give to prospective scribes, but there’s always room for more. To that end, helpful tweeters are offering up more #AllanBrauerProWritingTips:

Communications chair for the Sacramento Democrats Allan Brauer was “asked to resign” after wishing that Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter’s kids would “die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.” Brauer subsequently apologized, but it wasn’t enough. He also has a a long history of online hate.

From the Democratic Party of Sacramento County:

The Democratic Party of Sacramento County (DPSC) Friday called for and accepted the resignation of its volunteer communications chair following of series of personal twitter comments directed at GOP staff after Republicans voted to defund President Obama’s health care law.

DPSC chair Kerri Asbury said the personal twitter comments made by Communications Committee chair Allan Brauer were “appalling and inexcusable.” She accepted his resignation Friday, and issued the following statement...

__________________

It does pay to get on Twitter. Every voice counts. And yes, Twitter is a political battlespace. Get on it. - Michelle Malkin

In the survey of 1,004 adults taken Sept. 12-15, 52 percent say they oppose the new healthcare law, and 55 percent say they disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is handling its implementation. More than half who oppose Obamacare say they support shutting down portions of the federal government to stop it.

The Texas Republican is calling on his colleagues to oppose limiting debate on it, warning against what he calls procedural trickery.

“Step two is the Senate, where all accounts suggest Harry Reid plans to use procedural gimmicks to try to add funding back in for Obamacare,” Cruz said. “If Reid pursues this plan — if he insists on using a 50-vote threshold to fund Obamacare with a partisan vote of only Democrats — then I hope that every Senate Republican will stand together and oppose cloture on the bill in order to keep the House bill intact and not let Harry Reid add Obamacare funding back in.”

“Now is a time for party unity; Senate Republicans should stand side-by-side with courageous House Republicans,” Cruz said.

...Of course, if GOP senators actually follow Cruz and Hoskins’ advice, they will, in effect, be voting against a bill that includes Obamacare defunding. The vote to strike that language is not expected until after cloture is invoked, and it will take only 51 votes to succeed. That’s why Cruz may ultimately be proved correct when he says Democrats have the votes to send the measure back to the House, without Obamacare funding.

In this 10-part Washington Examiner series, Senior Writer Conn Carroll documents the many times Obama has flagrantly abused executive authority to advance his liberal agenda without congressional approval.

The top 10 instances will be examined over the next two weeks, and more will come later.

The free-wheeling interview, released simultaneously yesterday by the Jesuit journals, mirrored his now-famous in-flight media coming back from World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro this summer. Stunning journalists by his willingness to speak on any and all topics, the pope made headlines by answering a question on gay priests by responding, “Who am I to judge?”

Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics.

Pope Francis is delightfully frank, and that is what makes him positively engaging. He is also provocative in the best sense of that word. He seeks to challenge us and shake us out of our comfort zone. But he is not about to turn the Catholic Church upside down and inside out.

House Republicans passed their stopgap funding bill Friday to keep government open while terminating the new health care law, setting up a final showdown next week with Senate Democrats and President Obama who have firmly rejected that.

The 230-189 vote, which split almost exclusively along party lines, is the precursor to the big action next week, when the Senate is expected to strip out the health care provisions and send the bill back to the House — where Republicans will have to decide whether they can accept it at that point.

All sides are racing a Sept. 30 deadline, which is when current government funding runs out. The new measure would fund the government through Dec. 15, essentially at last year’s levels, and would leave the budget sequesters in place.

So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush....

The controversial directive states that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.”

It appears DoD Directive 5210.56 was reissued in April 2011 by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III.

Some outlets are citing Army Regulation 190-14, a policy implemented in 1993 that changed policy regarding carrying firearms on the Army’s military bases, to cast blame on Clinton.

“When it first started, a lot of people came out and said ‘technically it can’t be done,’” Bridenstine said. “’Technically, this is a Continuing Resolution and Obamacare is on the mandatory side so it can’t be defunded with a Continuing Resolution.’ And we proved that it can be defunded with a Continuing Resolution. After we proved that it could be defunded with a Continuing Resolution, then interestingly people started listening to the American people a little bit more. Then it was ‘politically, it can’t be done. We don’t have the votes. We don’t have the votes.’ We heard that over and over and over again. Well, tomorrow, we’re going to take a vote. And tomorrow we’re going to find out in the House of Representatives that we do, in fact, have the votes. And then it’s going to go to the Senate.”

Bridenstine said conservatives may in fact be able to defund Obamacare in the Senate, too, just like the House.

“Interestingly, everybody is going to say that the Senate can’t prevail,” Bridenstine said. “But they have said over and over again, and Ted Cruz said it just right. The pundits were saying it can’t be done. But the reason we have come this far is because of how many people have been reaching out to their members of Congress, how many people have been talking to their friends and their neighbors and going to DontFundIt.com and signing the petition and getting their friends and neighbors to sign the petition. It has absolutely changed the dynamic of this conversation.”

Tom McClintock: The house will be passing a continuing resolution to keep the government open. It will continue to fund all programs at their current levels - except Obamacare.

As a result of Obamacare, people are losing their jobs or seeing their hours cut back, their premiums are skyrocketing, their plans are being cut back, their employers are dropping their plans. De-funding Obamacare is hugely important to help relieve this pain on American families.

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it".

Senate Republicans, along with GOP lawmakers in the House, know that Sen. Ted Cruz and his colleagues don't have the votes to pass a continuing resolution to defund Obamacare. They don't even have the votes -- 41 in the Senate -- to successfully filibuster a resolution that does fund Obamacare. But some had hoped that Cruz & Co. could at least stage an old-fashioned talking filibuster -- like Sen. Rand Paul's March filibuster against U.S. drone policy -- that would at least be a high-profile symbol of Republican opposition to the president's national health care law.

Now, it turns out they can't even do that. "We won't have an opportunity to filibuster," says a Senate Republican aide. "It's going to be a simple majority vote."

“Some are lying, trying to mislead the public about the Obamacare exemption for Congress,” Republican Sen. David Vitter said in a statement Thursday. “President Obama recently issued a special rule for Congress and congressional staff to get a special subsidy to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare Exchange unavailable to every other American at similar income levels. That’s an exemption, plain and simple.”

Now Baroness DiFi wants to define as a “journalist” only those in MainStream Media. New media would be considered peons with no First Amendment protections. Matt Drudge, the most famous and influential of the New Media Journalists, tweeted that she was a “Fascist.”

...If Baroness DiFi had her way, the government-MSM axis would be all you heard from. The truth never would get out.

But thanks to the New Media, the truth shall set you free.

Comments from Sen. Feinstein yesterday on who's a reporter were disgusting. 17-year old 'blogger' is as important as Wolf Blitzer. Fascist!

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D.-Calif., thinks a proposed media shield law should be applied only to “real reporters,” not basement-dwelling, pajama-clad bloggers with no professional credentials... Under the definition proposed by Feinstein, a student working for a tiny college newspaper would get protection, but Matt Drudge, the owner and operator of the most successful news site on the Internet, might not.

As far as we know, the distinction Feinstein is making isn’t mentioned in the First Amendment. But what do we know? We’re just bloggers.

_________________

NOTE: One of the most important things about what we do here, on this site, is introduce you to the best of the New Media, the best bloggers, pundits and yes, reporters on the web. We bring you news, commentary and information that you do not get from the 'mainstream' ("lamestream") media. Through this site, you get to know the new reporters, the new 'citizen journalists' in the same way that people once knew Walter Cronkite. Follow the links. Favorite the sites. share the news via social media. In so doing, YOU make all the difference.

When Pravda.ru editor, Dmitry Sudakov, offered to publish my commentary, he referred to me as “an active anti-Russian politician for many years.” I’m sure that isn’t the first time Russians have heard me characterized as their antagonist. Since my purpose here is to dispel falsehoods used by Russia’s rulers to perpetuate their power and excuse their corruption, let me begin with that untruth. I am not anti-Russian. I am pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.

I make that claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination. I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government. I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few. You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just. I make that claim because I believe the Russian people, no less than Americans, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Putin and his associates do not believe in these values. They don’t respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even assassinate journalists who try to expose their corruption.

They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose sexual orientation they condemn. They throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Putin’s rule.

Sergei Magnistky wasn’t a human rights activist. He was an accountant at a Moscow law firm. He was an ordinary Russian who did an extraordinary thing. He exposed one of the largest state thefts of private assets in Russian history. He cared about the rule of law and believed no one should be above it. For his beliefs and his courage, he was held in Butyrka prison without trial, where he was beaten, became ill and died. After his death, he was given a show trial reminiscent of the Stalin-era and was, of course, found guilty. That wasn’t only a crime against Sergei Magnitsky. It was a crime against the Russian people and your right to an honest government – a government worthy of Sergei Magnistky and of you.

President Putin claims his purpose is to restore Russia to greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But by what measure has he restored your greatness? He has given you an economy that is based almost entirely on a few natural resources that will rise and fall with those commodities. Its riches will not last. And, while they do, they will be mostly in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few. Capital is fleeing Russia, which – lacking rule of law and a broad-based economy – is considered too risky for investment and entrepreneurism. He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn’t strong enough to tolerate dissent.

How has he strengthened Russia’s international stature? By allying Russia with some of the world’s most offensive and threatening tyrannies. By supporting a Syrian regime that is murdering tens of thousands of its own people to remain in power and by blocking the United Nations from even condemning its atrocities. By refusing to consider the massacre of innocents, the plight of millions of refugees, the growing prospect of a conflagration that engulfs other countries in its flames an appropriate subject for the world’s attention. He is not enhancing Russia’s global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants and an enemy to the oppressed, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.

President Putin doesn’t believe in these values because he doesn’t believe in you. He doesn’t believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies. Or, at least, he doesn’t believe Russians can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you.

I do believe in you. I believe in your capacity for self-government and your desire for justice and opportunity. I believe in the greatness of the Russian people, who suffered enormously and fought bravely against terrible adversity to save your nation. I believe in your right to make a civilization worthy of your dreams and sacrifices. When I criticize your government, it is not because I am anti-Russian. It is because I believe you deserve a government that believes in you and answers to you. And, I long for the day when you have it.

...The attendance was so great that the building was packed to capacity. Clearly people wanted to talk and there were some heartfelt testimonies. You had to be there. It might surprise you to know who has been homeless and the story of these individuals who are successful today was touching.

The disruptive crowd was a minority and got booed. Perhaps it is time for a vocal minority to recognize people would rather live in Arkleyville where they have a job, can afford a home and feel safe and have hope for the future. People have compassion, they don’t want to enable.
As one speaker put it, “can’t help someone who doesn’t want help.”. Homelessness is due to many reasons, the circumstances for each individual is different. Solutions are not simple, black or white. There are people who do and people who gripe.

...As the CBO sees it, the economic weight of the deficits we’re expected to add just in the next 25 years is enough to bring the national debt from 100 percent of GDP to 200 or 250 percent of GDP, i.e., from paralyzing to catastrophic. The deficits we’ve run for the last 25 years have imposed costs of their own. That the costs mainly manifest themselves negatively — in the form of businesses that don’t exist, profits that aren’t collected, and help that is not wanted — does not make them any less real, or less tragic. In the long run, the deficit is as much about whether you have a decent job or die from diabetes complications as it is about figures in CBO estimates. The price may not always be obvious, but you pay it every day.

In this 10-part Washington Examiner series, Senior Writer Conn Carroll documents the many times Obama has flagrantly abused executive authority to advance his liberal agenda without congressional approval.

The top 10 instances will be examined over the next two weeks, and more will come later.

Ronald Reagan compromised on budget issues with a Democratic majority rather than trigger a debt limit crisis. George H.W. Bush signed onto a tax increase in 1990 in part so he could get Democratic support for the brewing Gulf War. Bill Clinton struck a budget deal and worked with Republicans on foreign policy. And facing a new Democratic majority in 2007, George W. Bush signed onto a fiscal "stimulus" and rotten energy bill well before the financial crisis compelled bipartisan votes.

Mr. Obama declares that he won't even deign to negotiate over an extension of the debt limit, which expires within a month or two. And he carpet-bombs Republicans only two weeks after House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor took a political risk and declared they'd vote for the President's Syrian war resolution against the views of most of their own Members.

The evidence suggests that Mr. Obama wants a showdown with Congress that ends with a government shutdown or a dance with default. He can then mount an offensive against Republicans that will rally his base, which soured on his Syrian plans and vetoed Larry Summers for the Federal Reserve. With his domestic agenda dead on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama may also figure that stigmatizing Republicans over a shutdown-default crisis is the only way that Democrats can retake the House in 2014.

The question is how well all of this will play with a war-weary public.

...he’s just another liberal POLITICIAN who harbors the standard, stereotypical, unintellectual view of conservatives as dumb morons motivated by ill will toward their fellow man, and certainly, fellow woman.

And so, even as the wounded and dead were being accounted for following a mass shooting Monday morning a couple of miles away, Obama couldn’t live the with prospect of having to delay sinking his teeth into his conservative opponents. He’d spent weeks being nice as he courted their support for his Syria bombing campaign. I mean, enough was enough....

Take a close look at that. Obama’s allies in the Muslim Brotherhood are forcing non-muslims to pay “protection” money, also known as “Jizyah”. That’s the sharia my friends, circa 2013 (year 5 of our dear leader). That’s what Morsi and his crew of Bros had in mind all along. Now they have nothing to lose so the mask is off.

Local businessman Rob Arkley feels like the city and county are being taken over by the homeless, and he's looking to do something about it.

Arkley is calling a community meeting at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday in Eureka's Wharfinger Building, 1 Marina Way, to discuss homeless issues and, specifically, how to make it so fewer homeless people stick around town....

Our County and City are being taken over by the homeless. It seems as though many of the policies being pursued by our County and City governments, and certain not-for-profits, actually encourage the homeless to come here and stay here. Free food, showers, clean clothes, assistance above state averages, free housing, lax jail policies are just some of the attractive programs and policies. Clearly, too much right has become wrong. We have become a Mecca for the homeless and we all pay the price. Garbage or dump fees from trash and discarded clothing left on streets, sidewalks, alleys and private property have become “our” responsibility. Health and environmental issues arise from the same public areas and private property being freely used for urination and defecation, not to mention the aesthetics, or lack of, from this behavior. The general public is not comfortable walking in certain well known locations around our cities and county because the homeless with their antics have taken over what should belong to, and be enjoyed by, all of us.

I feel as though we are like the frog in the boiling water. It has gotten to the point where everybody knows that the homeless are a huge problem, but nobody is doing anything. All of our businesses are being negatively impacted. It is difficult to attract people to Eureka. Who wants to be panhandled on the way to an interview for a job? What business owner wants to invest in real estate that is negatively impacted by trash and loitering?

I think that it is time for us to get together and see if we can build a consensus on how to deal with this issue. Specifically, I would like to know what policies and programs can be cut that will reduce the number of homeless. I often hear that if we don’t provide certain services to the homeless, monies will be withheld by state and federal governments. While some, especially government and certain not-for-profits, may consider this dire, we need to make sure that elected officials understand that while government may lose monies, our private businesses and households may well be better off without the crime, environmental damage and monetary costs that these additional monies attract. It will also be interesting to see if the negative impacts of the homeless programs on local business and quality of life for the community are monetarily weighed.

Folks, let’s take our area back and encourage our elected officials to take steps that consider the overall negative impacts on all of us created by enrolling in programs designed to “help” the homeless. I have no doubt that when weighed against the loss of governmental revenue, the benefits to all of us by rejecting the monies would dwarf the downside.

I would like to see if any of you would like to join a group that deals with the most pressing issue that our area faces.

The party establishment seems to think the answer begins with amnesty and more low-skilled labor — which just happens to be the policy preference of the GOP’s donor class. Beyond this, the party's top consultants offer only rhetorical tweaks around the typical GOP package of low-tax corporatism.

If politicians and policy-makers would simply study the data, it would be clear that gun ownership should be encouraged in order to reduce the number of murders. There most certainly should be a gun control debate, and about that Sen. Feinstein is correct, but not in the way that the anti-gun lobby would want.

We should be discussing how to encourage more gun ownership, and whether taxpayer dollars should be allocated to help citizens learn how to better control the firearms we own. This is the gun control debate we should be having. By expanding the option for citizens in the United States to own a firearm and carry it, whether concealed or openly and in any location they choose, there would not be “gun free zones” that cry out to become the targets of a gunman on a rampage.

Senator Feinstein and others who are anti-gun should set the politics aside, and examine the reality of the statistics if safety is truly their end goal. Should they disregard the facts, then their true intentions must be questioned and exposed.

Background checks are only as good as the information in the database and the people running them. Alexis passed his background checks, then was issued credentials that allowed him to enter the Navy Yard, bypassing such armed security personnel as guarded the perimeter.

After that, he faced unarmed victims, deprived of the means to defend themselves. At this point the choice of weapons, nevermind Sen. Feinstein's fixation on AR-15s, was moot*.

This is gun control.

*Update: The FBI now says the weapons used by Aaron Alexis in the Washington Navy Yard attack were one shotgun and two pistols.

Ritrovato went on to explain that two of them had a close relationship based in part on their differences, specifically race and politics. Alexis was black, Ritrovato is white. Ritrovato described himself as conservative and Alexis is "more of a liberal type" who supported Barack Obama:

I would say things like, 'You know, you are my brother from another mother.' And he would say things like, 'You're my Italian mafia guy from New York.' So we had things we joked about: Aaron wasn't conservative like I am. He was more of a liberal type; he wasn't happy with the former [Bush] administration. He was more happy with this [the Obama] administration -- as far as presidential administrations.

"'Attack the costs first, and then worry about expanding coverage,' he said. 'I would much rather see another plan that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill.'"

It was also an act that places Obama's passivity during the Benghazi attacks--and his decision to fly to Las Vegas the next day for a campaign fundraiser--in perspective. This is a president who, even as Navy Seals approached Osama bin Laden's hideout, retired to play cards with his pals. The image is of a man with little regard for the lives of Americans in "his" military, or their families, beyond their use as campaign props.

In addition, President Obama--like it or not--leads the entire nation, not just the majority that voted him into office. In moments of terror and tragedy, his job is to bring the American people together, not to split us apart. Conservatives have been willing--eager, even--to embrace Obama on such occasions, as many did after his speech at the memorial for the Tuscon victims in 2011. Yesterday, he foreclosed any such reconciliation.

What we are seeing is partly the result of Obama's political foundation as a community organizer--there is never a crisis to waste, so to speak, in stirring up your core supporters against their contrived opponents....

Speaker of the House John Boehner said that Obama's speech was a "shame." Charles Krauthammer said that it was in "extremely bad taste." It was worse than that. It was an insult to the victims and their families, a slap in the face to the nation as a whole, a dereliction of the simplest duty of empathy and discretion. He may apologize--he ought to--but what Obama revealed about himself in that moment can never be undone.

The best option now is for the GOP to unite behind a budget strategy that can hold 218 votes, keeping the sequester pressure of discretionary spending cuts on Democrats to come to the table on entitlements. The sequester is a rare policy victory the GOP has extracted from Mr. Obama, and it is squeezing liberal constituencies that depend on federal cash.

The backbenchers might even look at the polls showing that the public is now tilting toward Republicans on issues including the economy, ensuring a strong national defense and even health care. Some Republicans think they are sure to hold the House in 2014 no matter what happens because of gerrymandering, but even those levees won't hold if there's a wave of revulsion against the GOP. Marginal seats still matter for controlling Congress. The kamikazes could end up ensuring the return of all-Democratic rule.

Tom McClintock: James Madison, the father of the American Constitution, said "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department...the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man."

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction.

As reported by prominent Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd, another complaint was filed with Barakat against Malik Obama, this one by Sami Sabri. This complaint, however, includes identifying President Barack Obama as the conduit who facilitated Malik’s illegal financial gains resulting from raising monies in the U.S. that have been used to fund operations that support a terror network. The report stated that the complaint realizes that it will not result in bringing President Obama to face justice but that it will present the Egyptian people with the facts about the atrocities committed by the Muslim Brotherhood and how the Barack Obama administration has acted as the group’s facilitator and protector.

But this is not a time for unity. Not at the White House, that is, where President Obama, after paying brief homage to the victims, began laying into Republicans with vitriol, scare tactics, and sarcasm...

On Special Report, tonight, Charles Krauthammer slammed Obama for his decision to go ahead with a previously scheduled economic speech while the the Naval Yard shooting was still unfolding, calling it “in extremely bad taste.”

The speech itself, he called “hyperpartisan” while marveling at the president’s “remarkable” quip that (in his magnanimous opinion), some Republicans “are decent.”

To do this within minutes of 13 Naval employees – brave Americans who lie dead – was in extremely bad taste,” Krauthammer noted with great disdain. ”He could have waited until tomorrow. It isn’t as if this is a holy anniversary – (the 5th anniversary of the financial crisis).”

Does anyone else out there find it shocking that by implication the President of the United States characterizes his opposition party as indecent, with only "a number of folks" in the decent category? And that he would do this in the wake of news of a mass slaughter?

Also behaving according to script are the gun grabbers, with Senator Dianne Feinstein in the lead, demanding regulations to deprive law abiding citizens of the means of defending themselves. The Colorado recall votes last week delivered a heavy blow to the gun grabbers. For them, the slaughter at the Naval Yard was an opportunity, and they are not letting it pass by.

...a recent audit discovered that 42 percent of Obamaphone beneficiaries — about 6 million people — hadn’t demonstrated eligibility. The Lifeline program cost $2.189 billion in 2012, so that amount of fraud comes at a high cost. TerraCom alone made $52.3 million off the program last year....

Myth I. Conservatives opposed to bombing Syria are isolationists.
Myth II. John Kerry is far worse than Hillary Clinton at secretary of State.

It was Hillary who was the architect of “lead from behind,” which proved nothing. Hillary thundered callously “what difference does it make?” over the four dead in Benghazi. Her State Department both stonewalled the Benghazi inquiry and, before the attack, refused to consider requests for more security.

It was Hillary who chortled in crude fashion “we came, we saw, Gaddafi died,” and in cruder fashion lied to the families of the dead that a right-wing video, not Islamist militias attacking a poorly defended consulate engaged in secretive arms smuggling, had led to the deaths of their sons. And, yes, it was Hillary who jumped ship to avoid the consequences of her own disastrous tenure, while she hit the lecture circuit to cash in and prep for her 2016 presidential run.

Kerry is incompetently cleaning up the wreckage of Hillary Clinton’s disastrous tenure.

The surprising recall election of two Colorado Democratic lawmakers Tuesday for backing gun control laws was a warning shot for lawmakers across America eager for more gun control laws.

Not for the Democratic supermajority in the California Legislature. More than two dozen gun control bills are being voted on this week. And while lawmakers are making a pretense of having difficulty voting for their passage, the bills are being passed. Several gun control bills have passed out of both houses of the Legislature and already await the governor’s signature.

...America is an exceptional nation, but not because of what it has achieved or accomplished. America is exceptional because, unlike any other nation, it is dedicated to the principles of human liberty, grounded on the truths that all men are created equal and endowed with equal rights. These permanent truths are "applicable to all men and all times," as Abraham Lincoln once said.

America's principles have created a prosperous and just nation unlike any other nation in history. They explain why Americans strongly defend their country, look fondly to their nation's origins, vigilantly assert their political rights and civic responsibilities, and remain convinced of the special meaning of their country and its role of the world. It is because of its principles, not despite them, that America has achieved greatness.

To this day, so many years after the American Revolution, these principles—proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the United States Constitution—still define America as a nation and a people. Which is why friends of freedom the world over look to the United States not only as an ally against tyrants and despots but also as a powerful beacon to all those who strive to be free.

Find out what makes these thirty philosophers and intellectuals important in the minds of radicals with this irreverent, quick-and-dirty exposition leading to a synthesis in the most powerful political figure in the world. Not all of these thinkers are radicals; but their ideas are being used in radical ways by those who want to turn America upside down — or as they would have it, right side up.

Welcome

Hi, I'm John Schutt, chairman of the Humboldt County Republican Central Committee: Want to get involved? We need republicans for open spots on the central committee, committee seats, letters to the editor writers, and more. Send me your thoughts and ideas on making Humboldt great again. Please feel free to call the office (442-2259) or leave a message here (or on Facebook) and I will get back to you as soon as possible.